Juank

A couple where the motion blur makes them more interesting. 24fps 1/50.





 

I don't think that it is a open mount - in fact, only Panasonic, Leica and Sigma offers AF lenses to L-mount.

Sony have Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang, Yongnuo with AF lenses.

I guess if I look at it from the perspective of BM then perhaps it makes slightly more sense.  BM has made cameras with S16 and MFT sensors and they used the MFT mount, and they made cameras with S35 sensors and used the EF mount.  Assuming they then wanted to make a FF camera, what mount would they choose?
EF mount
They have used it before, and their users already have lenses that use it, but the crop factor would change between the S35 and FF sensors, and the EF mount has pretty much been abandoned by Canon, so maybe BM want something that's still in active support RF mount
Canon have been quite restrictive with third-party use of the mount, so maybe Canon is blocking BM from licensing it, or maybe it's prohibitively expensive, or maybe the flange distance is too little for things like internal NDs PL mount
Seems like a logical choice with lots of existing lenses and support from other manufacturers, but maybe it's a step too far for their existing customer base, or maybe they want AF support (does PL support AF?) Nikon mounts
Not a lot of cine lenses for Nikon I wouldn't have thought, focus direction is the other way to EF lenses, which might be troublesome to their existing customers Fujifilm X-mount
No AF lenses available that cover FF and only 5 third-party lenses that do (on B&H) MFT mount
Wouldn't cover FF sensor Sony
A logical choice, but like Canon RF, Sony might not want to help BM compete with their cine-cameras so might be charging a lot for the license or might be refusing outright From this perspective I think L-mount makes more sense, and sort-of aligns with their previous use of MFT and EF mounts, which were both "semi-open" systems with lots of existing glass from original and third-parties.

There's a bit of post-processing involved in this video too but I do agree it does look great and miles better of other examples posted in this thread.
There's a difference between a DP and a person who likes tech and pretty images. 

My two cents. (five cents for the jar box for phrase dropping:) I don´t see anything impressive image wise. OG post from 0.57 to 1.02 looks gruesome, other shots still just fine compared to well shot 8bit 709 HD on Lumix and other old hybrid cameras. Above example shows very nice locations and light and sufficient framing and shot design, though not far off from being generic imho. So, well done by the creator. Nothing less but nothing more neither.
This is the so called film look without a costly plugin. It was shot on an almost 7 years old pocket camera, a Lumix LX15 in Rec709. To my eyes this is very beautiful and a nice achievement for out of your pocket cinema verité:
 
 

Honesty stuff like this makes me wish Apple would take their phone processing and put it into a super 35 sensor one of these days...Can you imagine if we had modern smart phone processing in a quality Sony chip?

Interesting comparison.
For anyone not aware, it's worth noting that since the iPhone 12, they quietly upgraded to doing auto-HDR and the h265 files are also 10-bit, as well with the prores files being 10-bit of course.  It is interesting how little they promoted this - I have an iPhone 12 mini and didn't even know about it for the first year of owning it!
This is what really unlocked the iPhone for me - I have used iPhones since the 8 for video but prior to the HDR / 10-bit update it really wasn't a competitor to anything other than cheap camcorders, as it lacked the DR to record without over-contrast or clipped highlights and bit-depth to really be able to manipulate it sufficiently in post to remove the Apple colour science and curve.

The answer is motioncam.

Lots of them are, but as you brought it up, here are my impressions on the above:
It's still far too sharp to be convincing - I noticed this in the first few seconds of the video - TBH my first impression was "is this the before or after footage?"..  of course, once you see the before footage then it's obvious, but it didn't immediately look like film either The motion is still choppy with very short shutter speeds - this would require an VND which isn't so easy to attach to your phone I think that people have some sort of hangup about resolution these days and as such don't blur things enough.  For example, here are three closeups from the above video.
The original footage from the iPhone:

Their processed version:

A couple of examples from Catch Me If You Can, which was their reference film:



As you can see, their processed version is far better, but they didn't go far enough.
I've developed my own power grade to "de-awesome" the footage from my iPhone 12 Mini and detailed that process here, but here's a few example frames:





I'm not trying to emulate film, I'm just trying to make it match my GX85.  Here are a couple of GX85 shots SOOC/ungraded for comparison:


I haven't got the footage handy for the above shots, but here are a few before/afters on the iPhone from my latest project from South Korea.
iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

I'm happy with the results - they're somewhere in between the native iPhone look (which I've named "MAXIMUM AWESOME BRO BANGER FOR THE 'GRAM") and a vintage cinema look.  My goal was to make the camera neutral and disappear so that you don't think about it - neither great nor terrible.
Going back to Dehancer / Filmbox / Filmconvert / etc..  these are great plugins actually and I would recommend them to people if they want the look.  I didn't go with them because I wanted to build the skills myself, so essentially I'm doing it the hard way lol.
The only thing I'd really recommend is for people to actually look at real film in detail, rather than just playing with the knobs until it looks kind of what they think that film might have looked like the last time they looked which wasn't recently...  I keep banging on about it because it's obvious people have forgotten what it really looks like, or never knew in the first place.
And while they're actually looking at real examples of film, they should look at real examples of digital from Hollywood too - even those are far less sharp than people think.  The "cinematic" videos on YT are all so much sharper than anything being screened in cinemas that it's practically a joke, except the YT people aren't in on it.

One of the (potentially numerous) differences when swapping from 4K to 6K (on a 4K timeline) is that the downsampling goes from being before the compression to afterwards.  Compression is one of the significant contributors to the digital look IMHO (just compare RAW vs compressed images side by side), and if you can downsample from 6K to 4K in post then you're downsampling and also interpolating (blurring) the compression artefacts that happen on edges.  
I would favour a workflow where the image is debayered, downscaled, then recorded to SD with very low or even no compression.  It would effectively have the benefits of downsampling and the benefits of RAW, but without the huge file sizes of RAW at the native resolution of the sensor.  Of course, no-one else thinks this is a good idea, so....

For track and field, if you shoot laterally by either tracking eg. gimbal moving in parallel or from a fix point by panning the sense of speed will be very different depending of frame rate and shutter speed.

24fps 1/50 will look like they go much quicker than 60fps 1/120 or look even slower at 60fps 1/500. Even when taking photo only panning laterally  you would always want to have some slow shutter speed so 60fps 1/120 will yield good pictures.

Now if they run towards you and your camera is not really moving eg. tripod or handheld, it will not matter that much if is 24fps 1/50 or 60fps 1/500 in term of sense of speed. But for photo grabbing 1/250 or above would be required. 

So instead of sticking with the 180 rule I change the shutter speed based on the position and movements and again if the prio is photo or video or both.

Some examples of my video grabs:

Slow shutter 180 rule









The below one works as the camera is moving (tracking bike) at the same speed as the athlete, if the camera would be fixed it would be impossible to get a picture out

 
 
High shutter speed 1/500 and above











For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion. 

It’s something I have played with before using 4k 50p and have had mixed results and as above, it’s been the shutter speeds that have been the biggest variable, especially if using the 180 degree rule.
The other thing that I found was that 4k was borderline OK and of course 6k or 8k would be better (stills resolution/detail/ability to crop etc).
One of my next projects (when I have some time) is to shoot some typical scenarios at 4k 60p and 6k 30p (my two current settings) and pull some stills.
The 6k is going to be the trickier one with a shutter speed of only 1/50th (shooting NTSC in a PAL region) but I will try some 1/100, 1/200, 1/400, 1/800 etc to see just how much the video blur is compromised.
I used to shoot 4k 50p with VND and just crank the shutter into the thousands  and thought the result was fine, but then all my productions shot that way were at 50% slo mo.
Ultimately, my personal interest as a hybrid wedding shooter is could I go to just shooting video and pulling stills for the entire event?
With 4k no. Well I could, but would not as the stills would be too compromised.
With 8k I think yes and that was my interest in the Z9.
However, I think with Lumix, they may just go 6k 100/120p full frame zero crop with the next gen S1 and that for me could be a sweet spot.
Internal ND would then be the icing on the cake 🎂 

It can certainly replace a tripod for certain shots with IS boost, but that's been true of Panasonic cameras for a while now. With some added post stabilisation you can get a perfectly locked off shot, and I have made use of this from time to time when I have some B roll that was shot handheld but would look better static.

The only major image quality improvement I can spot is a removal of a weird chromatic aberration that I'd never noticed before.
before

 
after

 

Ha ha! Nobody knows yet. Colours are the same. The red clipping problem is different, but not gone. Shadow banding remains.
Interestingly, that shot was with a Canon 70-200 f4 with Sigma Mc21. So with the new firmware maybe the camera can now do chromatic aberration correction with other lenses.
It would have been a bit easier if they just told us what they did 😂

I’m not receiving demand for it but jumped on that train ahead of it leaving the station. Rare for me!
I switched from 4k to 6k last 2 jobs just so I can re-crop productions from my usual 16:9 to 19:6 for social and shorts.

Yes, the voice memo has been a standard feature on pro bodies for many years.
Operated as per the Z9 here by a dedicated button on the back panel.


 
Yes you could do that and there will be dedicated photo editors on the other end of your LAN cable who will do that for you even without the voice prompt (which you would mainly use for player identification for the caption anyway).
Not everyone has the luxury of an editing team though and not every match is covered that way either.
In those instances when you are on your own then having it in camera is the best solution and by best I mean fast because it’s all about getting the image onto the photo desk of the newspaper as quickly as possible. The bigger the file (as the unedited version would be) has speed implications all along the way from ingest into the laptop, editing and export and most importantly out of the stadium when you won’t always have the luxury of wired internet and will often be having to even tether off your phone.
Another less obvious advantage is in terms of navigating the image on the back of the camera for player identification and focus checking. If you’re using your 400mm as a 600mm because the opposite goal is so far away then you have one less button press to get it to the right size on playback on the camera. I know that sounds trivial but it isn’t (particularly in gloves in the pudding down rain) and every second counts when you might be having to quickly analyse a 30 shot burst to find the best one.
What a pity the Z8/Z9 only do it in video mode then, at least in the current firmware.

My point was to the exposure, field of view, AF consistency and optical degradation.
If I am using my 400mm at f2.8/ISO6400 and 1/1250th and either crop in post to get to an 800mm FOV or use the Hi-Res Zoom then the exposure won’t change, the AF won’t change and the optical quality won’t change.
If I attach my TC-2.0x then my exposure WILL change (by two stops), the AF will degrade and as good (relatively) as the Nikon TC is then it does take a hit.
So the lenses will always be f2.8 and my exposure remains unchanged (which is hugely important when even category A stadiums for night matches are very tight when balancing high shutter speeds and ISO) and my FOV needs are met in a more dynamic way. A 70-200mm becomes a whole lot more useful when an extra 100mm can be activated without having to commit to having it on all the time.
Will they be “real” f2.8 in terms of absolute equivalence ALL the way throughly the range once they’ve got beyond their base focal length ?  
Nope.
But the compromise in those areas when using a clear image zoom type of function compared to using TCs when you need extra reach on tap are absolutely minimal compared to losing two stops of light and AF performance as and when you need it.
HOWEVER…..
Having said ALL of that, I’ve just discovered to my researching shame that unlike the Sony (and JVC) options  the Hi-Res Zoom feature is ONLY available in video mode not stills!
So disregard everything I’ve said on the subject from a sports photography point of view as it is moot 🙂 

When it comes to the specific case of the Z8/Z9, the answer to the question of “who the hell needs all that resolution?”, the answer, quite simply, is the target market for them do.
These are cameras intended for photojournalists/sports photographers/wildlife photographers.
In the case of the latter two in particular, with f2.8 long lenses costing £20-30 per millimetre of focal length, the variable 2x digital zoom functionality pays for the camera itself.
If you are shooting a match then from your fixed position at one end of the field you will generally not have enough reach with a 400mm. Depending on the stadium you might actually be so far behind the goal line that even 600mm will struggle. As the distance is variable you end up having to bring 1.4x, 1.7x and 2x TCs whereas with the Z8/Z9 you can dial it in and not have to worry about losing stops of light, IQ and AF performance.
Cropping using the digital zoom on these much higher resolution Z8/Z9 sensors, even at 2x is still giving you the D5 resolution and giving you impossible lenses such as 70-400mm f2.8 and 400-800mm f2.8 for free.
Just that one aspect - which is standard operating procedure for the intended market rather than a niche outlier- is absolutely massive and justifies the bump in resolution.
When it comes to the video side - again for its intended market - the 8K video is also a big deal in terms of practical rather than spec wanking purposes.
Not only does it give sufficient resolution to enable the reframing to cut, say, a two person interview into a convincing multi-cam look without it falling apart (see the MEVO camera for almost getting this right) but it also addresses the issue of repurposing content for (whisper it quietly) vertical video at good resolution.
We may not like vertical video but it is now a fact of life for mobile journalists having to provide vertical versions and regular versions of content for online consumption and these two cameras are ideal for it.
It is also a growing fact of life for event filmers too and with the AI “revolution” seemingly coming for an awful lot of roles in the next few years, covering live events might be the last bastion for many people wanting to stay in the game.
I say all this of course as someone who ended up not buying either of them !
However, If I was still doing the work I used to then I wouldn’t have blinked as it is absolutely fantastic for that role as it is intended to be, for the reasons above and more.
But I don’t, so I didn’t.
A rare case of objectivity that is completely out of character and which I am blaming on the jet lag.

 

@Geoffrey there's also the idea that you upgrade to keep your investment at a certain level. When a new camera comes out, the old model's value goes down quick. If you don't need the upgrades and don't plan on needing anything more for a few years, then yes... you might as well keep it. Who cares if the used value drops in half over the next year.
But in some instances small upgrades can eventually allow you to afford a higher price bracket of cameras. So if you sell the S5 now, you may get $1000 for it and you'd only need to shell out $800 for the new camera. If you wait a year, you may have to shell out more. If you skip a generation entirely, you may have to shell out a fortune more.
With that said, I've been shooting with the same camera for almost 6 years, so every case is different.
Good luck.

We'll definitely look back at todays cameras as inferior, but the number of pixels will be one of the last things that we'll be looking at.
Isn't it funny how when people talk about resolution they say more is better, but when they talk about images they put the Alexa at the top?

Even just thinking about 8K 60p makes my hard drives hurt!

Live update from the counter of the shop as I’m making the purchase.
It has very much NOT gone as expected.
More news to follow  

Very mixed. I am not dependant on ads and never have been so that side makes no difference to me, but there is definitely a shift to YouTube and social media. People aren't researching Google or reading long articles as much as before.
YouTube is a grind and I have mixed feelings about that too. I enjoy it when I have some ideas. But the thought of being on a treadmill of content is horrific. Don't post for a week and you may as well be dead.
On the other hand, EOSHD is great, having your own site independent from the algorithms of social media and YouTube is much more relaxed and I can do what I like, post what I want, when I want. And then there is this lovely forum, which is pretty unique.
Never was close to the PR side of the camera industry and rejected a lot of advances.
The site is not in a better position to cuddle up to the manufacturers, they are putting their free loans and exclusive invitations behind social media influencers instead now.
Bloggers with articles are the previous gen of social media influencers.
Now it is clowns and show offs on social media.
They are perfect for one another and I don't want to be involved to be honest.
I am looking to the future now and that is keeping EOSHD updated, at the same time as moving onto two new sites:
Full Frame AI (making most of AI for photographers)
and
Ultra Camera Review (smartphone cameras and apps)
There is much more future development in these areas than in mirrorless cameras, or filmmaking. Video on stills camera has kind of been "done" hasn't it?

According to comments on the above video, someone asked a gaffer who said the whole thing was shot on FX3 and Oren Soffer said this on Twitter:
"We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)"
Not sure why all this mystery around what was used but I sense this should make headlines if/when it is officially revealed that the whole thing was shot on the FX3.